Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9c4d2ed3-fa00-4610-ef7e-f22bd2f3a3b0@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-08-05 05:00, David Rowley wrote: > The 5GB scaled TPC-H test does show some performance gains from the v4 > patch and shows an obvious regression from removing the unlikely() > calls too. > > Based, mostly on the TPC-H results where performance did improve close > to 2%, I'm starting to think it would be a good idea just to go for > the v4 patch. It means that future hot elog/ereport calls should make > it into the cold path. Something based on the v4 patch makes sense. I would add DEBUG1 back into the conditional, like if (__builtin_constant_p(elevel) && ((elevel) >= ERROR || (elevel) <= DEBUG1) ? \ Also, for the __has_attribute handling, I'd prefer the style that Andres illustrated earlier, using: #ifndef __has_attribute #define __has_attribute(attribute) 0 #endif -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: